Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31196068›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2019

Does access to a portable ophthalmoscope improve skill acquisition in direct ophthalmoscopy? A method comparison study in undergraduate medical education.

J A Gilmour-White, A Picton, A Blaikie, A K Denniston, R Blanch, J Coleman, P I Murray

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

J A Gilmour-WhiteInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. j.gilmour-white@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0098-7362
A PictonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9990-2554
A BlaikieGlobal Health Implementation Team, School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK.
A K DennistonUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHSFT, Birmingham, UK.
R BlanchInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
J ColemanInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
P I MurrayInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBRoyal Navy · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDirect ophthalmoscopy (DO) is an essential skill for medical graduates but there are multiple barriers to learning this. Medical students and junior doctors typically lack confidence in DO. Most students do not own an ophthalmoscope and learn via ward devices that vary in design and usability. The Arclight ophthalmoscope (AO) is an easy to use, low-cost and portable device that could help address device access. This study aimed to assess the impact of personal ownership of an AO on DO skill acquisition and competency amongst medical students in the clinical environment.

methodsMethod comparison study with 42 medical students randomised to either traditional device ophthalmoscope (TDO) control or AO intervention group during an 18-week medical placement. Three objective assessments of DO competency were performed at the beginning and end of the placement: vertical cup to disc ratio (VCDR) measurement, fundus photo multiple-choice questions (F-MCQ) and model slide examination (MSE). DO examinations performed during the placement were recorded via an electronic logbook.

resultsStudents in both groups recorded a median number of six examinations each during an eighteen-week placement. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in any of the objective assessment measures (VCDR p = 0.561, MCQ p = 0.872, Model p = 0.772). Both groups demonstrated a minor improvement in VCDR measurement but a negative performance change in F-MCQ and MSE assessments.

conclusionsStudents do not practice ophthalmoscopy often, even with constant access to their own portable device. The lack of significant difference between the groups suggests that device access alone is not the major factor affecting frequency of DO performance and consequent skill acquisition. Improving student engagement with ophthalmoscopy will require a more wide-ranging approach.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateOphthalmoscopesEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansMaleOphthalmologyDirect ophthalmoscopyOphthalmologyUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID31196068
PMCPMC6567496
OpenAlexW2952751342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.